Archive Highlights

WHAT MIGHT MARTIN LUTHER KING SAY ABOUT U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST TODAY?
On April 4, 1967, King delivered an address, entitled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence”, at Riverside Church in New York City. More than 40 years later, it remains one of the most searing analyses we have ever encountered of the temptation to hegemony which, time and again over the last 60 years, has lured the United States into ill-conceived, highly destructive, and ultimately counterproductive foreign policies.

MOVING BEYOND REGIME CHANGE IN AMERICA’S MIDDLE EAST POLICY
We do not believe that the United States needs regime change in Tehran to improve its relations with Iran. To do that, the United States needs to pursue smart diplomacy with the Islamic Republic’s current political structure—diplomacy, that is, which treats the Islamic Republic as Iran’s legitimate government, seeking to defend and enhance Iran’s legitimate interests. This is something that no U.S. President since 1979—not even Barack Hussein Obama—has tried to do.

ASHURA IN ISTANBUL AND TEHRAN: WESTERN JOURNALISTS CONTINUE TO UNDERESTIMATE IRAN’S SOFT POWER
We have previously warned against underestimating the extent of Iran’s “soft power” in the Arab world. But those doing the chattering would also be well advised to ponder that America’s closest Arab allies—Egypt and Saudi Arabia—are entering a period of political uncertainty because of impending changes in top-level leadership, and are, in any event, losing influence across the region (Egypt even more than Saudi Arabia, but the trend is clear in both cases).

WHY SHOULD IRAN TRUST PRESIDENT OBAMA?
A sober examination of the Obama administration's interactions with Iran since President Obama took office in 2009 reveals a dismaying mix of incompetence and outright duplicity that has done profound damage to American interests and credibility.

Baradei’s Proposal And Iranian Calculations

As we wait for Tehran’s response to the proposal from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, to remove low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Iran for further enrichment and fabrication into fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, it is important to understand the considerations that are shaping decision-making on the Iranian side. Hillary Mann Leverett offers her observations about the Iranian approach to Baradei’s proposal in a new piece, “Pragmatists in Iran”, published by Foreign Policy.com.

Iran originally proposed to buy fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor from international providers. There was clearly consensus support for this idea in Tehran leadership circles. The United States and other players responded with a “counter-proposal”, whereby Iran would ship most of its current stockpile of LEU out of the country for fabrication into fuel rods. The merits of this approach are very much a debatable proposition in Tehran. As Hillary points out, this debate has nothing to do with reformists vs. hardliners, or the pro-Ahmadinejad camp vs. the anti-Ahmadinejad camp. Fundamentally, this debate reflects a lack of confidence in Tehran about U.S. and Israeli intentions toward the Islamic Republic.